Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

2015-10-06 Thread Thierry Reding
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:21:34AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > Hey Thierry, > > thans for your quick reply :) > > On 06-10-15 09:38, Thierry Reding wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > >>Hey Thierry, list, > >> > >>While working on something in the pw

Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

2015-10-06 Thread Olliver Schinagl
Hey Thierry, thans for your quick reply :) On 06-10-15 09:38, Thierry Reding wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote: Hey Thierry, list, While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void *data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data.

Re: [RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

2015-10-06 Thread Thierry Reding
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:20:53AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > Hey Thierry, list, > > While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void > *data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data. Why is it not called > device_data, since it is the data associated with a PWM d

[RFC] pwm: chip_data vs device_data

2015-10-06 Thread Olliver Schinagl
Hey Thierry, list, While working on something in the pwm framework, I noticed that the void *data in the pwm_device struct is called chip_data. Why is it not called device_data, since it is the data associated with a PWM device, rather then the chip, and on that note, if it really is chip rela